The Demise of the USA

I've had a hard time expressing the problems with the ineffectiveness of the US Government. Probably because I don't know enough fo the facts. Paul Krugman doesn't have my problem. He explains how dysfunctional we've become.

In the past, holds were used sparingly. That’s because, as a Congressional Research Service report on the practice says, the Senate used to be ruled by “traditions of comity, courtesy, reciprocity, and accommodation.” But that was then. Rules that used to be workable have become crippling now that one of the nation’s major political parties has descended into nihilism, seeing no harm — in fact, political dividends — in making the nation ungovernable.

Bleah for the USA!

More Health Care

One of the primary arguments against a public insurance option in the current healthcare debate is that this is a form of Socialized Medicine, and Socialized Medicine is bad. Such statements are usually followed up with anecdotes about how messed up healthcare is in England or Canada or France, because people have to wait for service (which, of course, we do in the US), and the technology lags.

The funny thing of it is, as bad as the healthcare systems are in these countries, people still live longer than they do in the US.

I've included Switzerland in the comparison below because, as Paul Krugman points out, the "Public Option" plan favored by many Democrats most closely resembles the Swiss system. And Cuba, because we all know that everything sucks in Commie Cuba.

Average life expectancy in 2007, per the World Health Organization:
Switzerland 82
Canada 81
France 81
England 80
Cuba 78
USA 78


Infant mortality rate in 2007, same source:
France 3 deaths per 1,000 live births
Switzerland 4
Canada 5
England 5
Cuba 5
USA 6

The fact of the matter is that basically all developed countries other than the US guarantee health care coverage for all their citizens. And all of them fare better in life expectancy and infant mortality rates than does the US. Do we have the best healthcare facilities in the world? Perhaps we do. But that doesn't do any good when there are 50 million people who can't get treatment because they don't have coverage. (Or often, even if they do, but that's another story.)

Let's care for our fellow countrymen, folks. Let's ensure healthcare for all.

Thoughts on Health Care

The latest political boogeyman is Universal Health Care, as proposed by the Obama administration. Lots of rhetoric is thrown back and forth on the issue, and the Right Wing, while offering little in the way of alternatives, continues to snipe at the proposal.

Some of the common themes:

It's going to lead us to socialism!
Please. For one thing, the checks and balances in our government are too strong, and the election cycles are too short, for us to become a socialist society. If the people don't want the US to become a socialist society, we'll vote out those who we think are leading us in that direction.

Besides, the government has been providing essential services that benefit the public good for a long, long time. Having a state-sponsored police force hasn't led us to socialism. Nor, for that matter, has publicly-run health care, like Medicare.

There will be a government bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor!
I'm not sure how this is worse than having an insurance industry bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor. Or between you and your reimbursement, for that matter.

Private capital is incented to operate more efficiently!
Private capital is incented to maximize profits. Sure, they might provide health insurance with fewer employees than the government will provide it with, but they are also looking for ways to get more money into the pockets of the executives and shareholders. Some of this is done by operating more efficiently. Some of this is done by increasing premiums. And some of this is done by denying coverage to people who believe they've purchased it. In a government-run universal system, there is no profit or bonus incentive, so those costs are eliminated.

As for operating efficiently - raise your hand if you've never heard of governmental entities cutting jobs? I thought so.

Government spending will increase! Taxes will go up!!!
And spending on private healthcare coverage will go down. Again, I fail to see the difference between a dollar sent to the government and a dollar sent to a private company.

You'll have to wait in line to get treatment!
Which is no different from today. People don't get surgery on the same day they sign up for it, they have to wait a couple of weeks. As for the converse, it's simply not true that in countries with socialized medicine that a person in cardiac arrest (for example) has to wait for the doctor to treat a kid with a skinned knee. Would any civilized society stand for that?

I admit that I can't begin to do an analysis of all the dollars associated with a government-sponsored health coverage system. I also don't deign to understand all the details of the Obama package. There is no doubt that there are tremendous flaws in the system, many of which are the result of granting too many concessions to the insurance industry.

But common sense tells me that, in the long run, a government-sponsored health industry will be cheaper than privately run insurance companies. Yes, more people will be covered, but those people already incur costs that the rest of us cover through Medicare, or rate increases needed to offset charity care. If covered, those currently uninsured are also more likely to receive preventative treatment rather than more costly critical care.

And since the government already provides Medicare and Medicaid, there is already an infrastructure in place upon which the new system can be built.

Health insurance should be about providing for the health care of people, not about increased profits. We will never have adequate coverage until those providing the coverage have the patient's health as their primary focus. That is not currently the case.

Ecological Intelligence

“We have to stop speaking about the Earth being in need of healing. The Earth doesn’t need healing. We do.”

These words, from South African physician and naturalist Ian McCallum, close Daniel Goleman’s new book Ecological Intelligence: how Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy can Change Everything. Goleman’s book is an ambitious work that goes beyond the usual cries that humans are screwing up the planet and discusses how we can use market forces to change that behavior.

Not that Goleman ignores the fact that humans are screwing up the planet. (Or rather, screwing up the planet for humanity, as with the opening quote.) He goes into great detail to show how those of us in the US continue to pollute the air, ground, water and our bodies, long after science has shown us to be doing great harm. The reason for this is threefold: 1) Industry doesn’t change its practices because it might not be profitable to do so; 2) Government doesn’t regulate change, because political elections are financed by Industry; and 3) Consumers don’t insist on changes because we aren’t aware of the harm we are doing.

To combat this, Goleman introduces the reader to the concept of “Radical Transparancy,” wherein a product’s devalue (i.e. the harm it can do) is as readily known as its value. Studies have shown that if consumers are aware of the social, environment and especially health impacts of a product, most will change their purchasing habits even if it means spending more to buy the better product.

To illustrate, Goleman tells the tale of trans fat, which under the label “shortening” was a staple of home and industrial food production for 100 years. However, when the Institute of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration independently issued reports at the turn of the 21^st century detailing the health risks associated with trans fat, public concern reached heightened levels. When the FDA issued labeling requirements indicating the level of trans fat in foods, the agency in effect issued the death knell. Trans fat has been almost completely eliminated from foods in the US, because informed consumers do not want to buy products containing trans fats.

Not all stories are as cut-and-dried as that of trans fat. In some cases the risks are less immediate (global warming), or less personal (worker treatment), or less obvious (tainted water supplies).

To fully understand these risks, we need to understand more than simply how a product is made and how it is disposed of. We also need to understand what impacts result from the production of components, and of the subcomponents, and so forth. We also need to understand the impacts of shipping, packaging, and how the product is used. This is called “Life Cycle Analysis,” a cradle-to-grave study of a product’s impact.

One such study was made by the folks at Proctor & Gamble, who discovered that the greatest impact from its production of Tide laundry detergent was in the way the product was used. More specifically, the energy required to heat the laundry water was greater than the impacts incurred in manufacturing and transporting the product. This inspired P&G to develop a detergent that is just as effective using cold water.

Goleman treats the reader to several such anecdotes, and highlights several companies in addition to Proctor and Gamble (like Interface and (gulp!) Wal Mart) that have taken it upon themselves to improve the impacts of their businesses. Goleman also discusses the way that the US Government’s loose approval guidelines, the phenomenon of Unintended Consequences, and the corporate practice of “Greenwashing,” make it more difficult for the consumer to fully understand the impact of their purchasing practices. Thus the need for Radical Transparency.

Ecological Intelligence does a thorough job of describing the perils that face the unwitting consumer in the United States, and how industry and government work in tandem to obfuscate those perils. The reader comes away understanding that the threats to our health, the environment, and the people in third-world countries are real and avoidable. Where the book falls somewhat short is in offering solutions. This is because the Radical Transparency industry is in its infancy. The resources available to the consumer are not easily accessed at the point of sale (or, more importantly, in the aisle when the shopper is making a decision). Those that do exist still have large gaps in compiling the massive amounts of data on all products available for sale in the US.

This is an important book, and perhaps the first step in bringing the need for Radical Transparency into the collective consciousness. I believe that the population of this country is grossly unaware of the true impact of the way that we live. With the government beholden to industries that are unwilling to make risky changes that might impact the bottom line, the impetus for change must come from the grassroots. I believe that an educated population will generate the force required to shift the markets. We just need the information.

The following web sites are referenced in Goleman’s book. They have their shortfalls, but begin to provide the information that will help us change the way business is done in the US.

http://www.goodguide.com/ to find safe, healthy and green products.

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ for Skin Deep, the Cosmetics Safety Database.

Solutions Plus

Saturday was a gloriously sunny and warm day in Southern Maine. So I spent it, along with my wife and a few other committed individuals, inside the theater at Frontier Cafe. The event was Solutions + Saturday, the brainchild of Fred Horch, proprieter of F.W. Horch Sustainable Goods in Brunswick. Solutions + Saturday was the culmination of a series of events celebrating Earth Week at the Cafe.

The were four topics examined, all of which centered around short films followed by discussion.
*Recycling
*Local and Organic Food
*Household Chemicals
*Energy and Climate Change

Each of these topics is worthy of it's own post, or even series of posts, and I intend to touch on them all in a series over the next few days or couple of weeks. I've certainly written a fair amount about Global Warming, and the economics of eating local food has been an interest of mine as well. I haven't thought as much about household chemicals, but the discussion related to pesticides, vinyl products, and other poisons that we readily bring into our homes was a real eye-opener.

The first topic, recycling, is to me a no-brainer. It is so clear to me that the foundation to protecting the planet is the mantra "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" that it is fundamental to all decisions that I make. The discussion on Saturday centered around the new single-stream recycling system in Brunswick. Students at Bowdoin College made a short film called "The Quest for Dan the Can" to educate other students about the changes in the recycling program. The film took us to the Brunswick landfill, and the recycling processing facility in Avon, Mass.

Discussion following the film centered around the Brunswick program, what can and can not be recycled, and a few myths. One myth discussed was the common misconception that it takes more energy to recycle an aluminum can than to create a new one. This only accounts for the actual can manufacturing process. Of course, a new can requires energy to extract the raw materials, transport the raw materials, and transform the raw materials into aluminum. Once all of these uses are accounted for, the energy cost of a new can far exceeds that of a recycled one.

Other interesting facts are that metals and glass do not degrade in the recycling process, so these materials can be recycled into the same products indefinitely. Fiber-based materials like paper do degrade, so can only be recycled into lower-grade materials. Certain plastics can be recycled indefinetely (#2 PET), however plastics all have some sort of pesky toxin issues, as well as the pesky petroleum-based issue for most (there are some vegetable-based plastics now on the market.)

One topic that was not discussed, perhaps do to time, is the concept of "precycling", which can also fall under the "reduce" category. Precycling can take a couple of forms. One form that I use a lot is buying in bulk and reusing containers at home. This reduces the amount of packaging associated with your purchases. Another form is to buy products whose producers have chosen to minimize the packaging for their products. One could also let the manufacturer know that one of the reasons that you buy their products is due to the limited packaging. (Do as I say, not as I do. I think this is a great idea that I may have done once in my life!). The final form of precycling is, if you can't avoid packaging, to purchase products enclosed in recycled packaging, preferably post-consumer material if possible. Again, let the manufacturer know that their packaging decisions matter to you.

I commend Fred Horch and Frontier for running this program. The only downside was that the public participation was very light. I know that Frontier and F.W. Horch publicized the event fairly heavily, but the weather certainly wasn't in their favor, especially considering the storms that we have suffered recently. It wasn't a good day to be inside. Still, there was lively discussion of all topics, and all are very important topics for the health of the planet and those who inhabit it, including humans. After attending the presentations, it is my pledge to bring these topics to an even broader audience - you the loyal reader. Stay tuned!

US is near the bottom in family-friendly employment policies

In the "sadly not a surprise" category, a new study from researchers at Harvard and McGill Universities shows that "The United States lags far behind virtually all wealthy countries with regard to family-oriented workplace policies such as maternity leave, paid sick days and support for breast-feeding...The study, officially being issued Thursday, says workplace policies for families in the United States are weaker than those of all high-income countries and many middle- and low-income countries."

The most damning information, according to the article, is that the US is alone with just four other countries - Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland and Papua New Guinea - who do not provide some guarantee of paid maternity leave. On the surface, this does not appear to be esteemed company. 173 total countries were in the study.

The strong points for the US were in the areas of equal access to employment, and in compensation. The sad state of this country is that dollars are able (and expected) to appease any injustice imposed upon people. That's a conclusion that you could draw in theory, anyway. In reality, those who are not offered maternity leave are more likely to be people working at the low end of the pay scale.

This is yet another example of how corporate America is allowed to run rampant with little governmental control. All corporations have to do is say, "it will cost too much money if we are mandated to provide maternity leave" and the government cowtows to them. God forbid we jeopardize the bottom line by being decent to people. We want mothers to be back at work so we can continue poisoning their children with polluted discharges into the air and water while nobody is looking.

Is it not true that unpaid maternity leave costs too much for most families to handle? Why are corporate bank accounts more important than personal ones? Furthermore, don't corporations suffer from lost productivity and poor morale from workers who are forced back on the job when they should be attending to their children, or from women who were forced to take unpaid leave in order to care for and bond with their newborn? What about not providing paid sick time? Sick workers will go to work rather than miss a day's pay, perhaps to their own detriment as well as their co-workers, and more productivity losses ensue. It's not easy to quantify the cost of lost productivity, but it is a real one that does affect a company's bottom line.

To be fair, most companies do provide for paid maternity leave and sick time, though they are not forced to do so. Allowances for breastfeeding breaks and paternity leave, however, are much less common. And many companies are happy to have employees work 60-hour weeks with no legal repercussions. Workers are too often treated as commodities - units of productivity, if you will - in this country, rather than as people. The government is loathe to create more regulations, assuming that the "market" will take care of any problems in our capitalist society. However, the market does not address employment practices, especially for those on the lower end of the earnings scale. Low-skill workers can not pick and choose where they work based upon benefits, they have to hope to get jobs wherever they are available. If that's at Wal Mart and they won't be getting health insurance, too bad for them. Organized labor faces more roadblocks every year, making them less effective than in the past. And the consumer market isn't really in a position to have much influence, because we simply are not informed of a company's employment practices, and we are not educated on how poor educational practices can be a detriment to society.

If the US is supposed to be the greatest country to live in, then we should act like it. People should be treated as people, and poor employment practices should not be legal in this country. It's shameful to be the wealthiest country on Earth and continue to appear at the bottom of these lists.

Mainers Support Higher Taxes

Once again, Mainers have shown that when given the choice between lowering their taxes and maintaining "local control," they'll take local control every time.

The most recent example comes from Livermore Falls, a mill town about 30 miles up the Androscoggin River from Lewiston/Auburn. According to this story, Livermore Falls residents voted at the end of June to not fund several town services (including police and emergency services) in protest of plans to close the local transfer station and switch dispatch services to a regional rather than local service. These moves were designed to save taxpayer dollars. Ultimately, it took restoring the "local control" over dispatch and the transfer station to gain approval for reopening the rest of the town government.

The town decided to keep local dispatchers and continue to pay for the transfer
station. But in order to do so, they will have to raise the property tax levy
limit.

Time after time we in Maine are beat about the head with the fact that the state carries the highest tax burden in the country. In fact, according to The Tax Foundation, Maine's State/Local tax burden has been highest in the country every year since 1997. This leads to periodic support for potentially destructive tax-reform legislation.

Yet every time we are given the opportunity to consolidate services to save money (for example school districts, which are extraordinarily inefficiently organized), Mainers squawk. "We want our local control," they say.

Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't have neighboring towns paying full-time wages to duplicate services for a few thousand people, and also save money.

Personally, I'm all for paying a few more tax dollars and making sure that Sally down at the clerk's office keeps her job. I see it as akin to shopping at Grand City instead of Wal-Mart. Keep the dollars in the community. Then again, I'm not complaining about my tax rate, though it is undoubtedly too high. Other Mainers do complain about their taxes, but are apparently incapable of seeing the connection between their choices for local governance and the tax rate. So Livermore Falls, you've officially lost your standing to support TABOR this fall, though I've no doubt how the vote will go in that town.

Business done the right way

Recently, my partner purchased a shirt from a company called Bamboosa. For some time we've been purchasing food that is primarily locally-grown or organic (or, at least all natural), preferably both. For some shorter amount of time, we've been focusing on natural cleaning products and other earth-friendly household supply. In the back of our minds, we've been thinking that we should look into purchasing clothing made from organic fabrics. We've dipped our toes in the water - a pair of Maggie's Socks here, an organic tee-shirt there - but we've found the price differential to be a little extreme when considering some of the higher-ticket items.

We've finally decided that we need to put our money where our mouth is. There are several considerations: prices will never go down if demand doesn't increase; ideally we're getting a better product (one that lasts longer); and the health of the planet is more important than our pocketbooks. So when my partner needed a new long-sleeve, off-white tee shirt, we pulled out our trusty Co-op America Green Pages (actually, our trustly laptop, on which to look up the Green Pages) and did a search for women's clothing. We came across Bamboosa, specializing in clothing made out of bamboo.


Not only did Bamboosa have a reasonably priced shirt, they have a high commitment to the environment and socially responsible business practices (read more here). And bamboo, like hemp, is a "naturally organic" product. In other words, you practically can't stop it from growing, so you don't need a bunch of chemicals and pesticides to help it along. It also grows very quickly, so sustainability isn't an issue.

Needless to say, we were sold on Bamboosa. The shirt that we received is surprisingly soft and comfortable. Who knew this about bamboo?

Unfortunately, there is a problem with the garment, one which we would not have known about had the manufacturer not contacted us. (Here's one vote for giving your email address to companies!) A problem with the sewing machine caused little holes near the seams - holes that will become bigger as the shirt is worn and washed.

With no prompting from us, Bamboosa has promised to replace the garment at no cost - we don't even have to return the original. This is business done the right way, and I highly commend the folks at Bamboosa for putting practice and planet above profit. In the end, this will make them the most profitable company they can be.

No free ride

I had a brief debate about taxes, a couple of weeks ago, over at Words Matter with a guy named "Keepmo'money". Keepmo' was commenting in response to Jim's post about a speech made by Warren Buffet. In the speech, Buffet (one of the world's wealthiest men, and the man who brought you Geico) advocated against the type of tax structure favored by George W. Bush.

In response, Keepmo'money stated that taxes are "stealing," and even went so far as to compare the government's self-imposed power to tax with decisions made by the Nazis. He also succinctly stated that "Liberals justify this system of stealing by giving all the good things that are done with the money. It still is stealing."

Now, obviously this guy is an idiot and doesn't really justify your or my attention. However, he does express a mindset that I've heard from others: "why should I give my money to the government?" I've earned it, it's rightfully mine, and the government is stealing from me.

The simple answer is that it's not your money. By this I mean that you are paying the government to provide you with services. Just as you would consider failing to pay someone who landscaped your yard "theft of services", failure to pay taxes can be considered theft of services. Let's think of some examples.

Here's one: as soon as Keepmo' puts the wheels of his SUV onto the pavement of a public way, he owes the government some money. The government built the road and maintains the road. If it were a private road (i.e. not supported by tax money), he would most likely have to pay a toll. Tolls are another form of taxes. The less tax money that goes toward road construction and maintenance, the more toll money gets charged. So far, we're not saving any money. In addition, to be truly "fair," every road would have a toll, so that just those using each particular road are paying for it. Would this be a better system?

Here's another: education. Currently a whole lot of our tax dollars go to support public education. What would happen if we didn't pay taxes? Well, we already know the answer to this one, because we already have private schools that don't receive tax support. These private schools charge tuition. In a "tax-free" world, tuition is another form of tax.

So far, we're not keeping any mo' money.

How about safety: police and fire? These services are paid for by tax dollars. Are we supposed to pay for our own police and fire protection, like we do insurance? If we don't pay, we don't get coverage?

"I'm sorry that your uncle got shot, but he discontinued police coverage last year, so we're not going after the killer."

"Wait, what's the address of the fire? 32 Main? No coverage, let 'er burn!"

Or maybe they send you a bill. "OK, we sent over two tankers and a ladder. You got your hourly charge for the trucks, plus mileage to and from the station. We had ten men on the scene, and since it was a Sunday they get double-time . . . . ."

And just think of the fines for speeding!

This is obviously absurd, but it illustrates a point. Government provides services that benefit the public good. Education, safety, infrastructure. And in most cases, they provide them much more efficiently than a fragmented, privatized provider system would. How about national security and defense? Most conservatives consider these worthwhile endeavors. How do you suppose we would pay for these without taxes? We live in a capatilist society, people aren't going to volunteer to put their lives on the line, and defense contractors aren't going to build bombers and simply hand them over to the military, free of charge.

Maybe we could all just pay some of our own money into a pool, and we'll use that pool of money to pay for the bombers. Oops! That's a tax, just like the government does.

Unfortunately, Keepmo'money doesn't leave any contact information, so we just have to hope that he comes back to continue the debate. I suspect that what Keepmo' and most of the other "anti-tax" people really mean is that they don't want their tax money to go to social services, which they usually define as "lazy poor people on welfare." However, I think that it's well documented that government handouts to the well-to-do easily exceed those provided to the poor of this country. Furthermore, I suspect that we get favorable returns from money spent on social services (e.g. productivity gains as a result of adequate health insurance for the workforce), especially as compared to tax breaks to industry that end up in the pockets of the shareholders.

Hopefully I'll have enough time in the coming weeks to further explore some of these concepts. For now, however, I hope that I've demonstrated that there is no such thing as a free ride, and a reduction of taxes doesn't necessarily allow us to "keep more money."

A Resounding "No"

In the most definitive vote yet on the issue, Mainers rejected discrimination against homosexuals by a 55% - 45% margin on Tuesday night. The vote culminates years of work by Maine Won't Discriminate, which has fought this battle twice in the past. Apparently Mainers are more convinced that homosexuals do, in fact, face discrimination in their daily lives. As Wisdom Weasel pointed out, the Christian Civic League may have also mis-stepped in running a campaign based on irrational fear ("Protect our Children!" "Save Marriage!") rather than making the focus on "special rights" as they have done in the fact. Indeed, I read just one reference to special rights, in a letter to the editor of the Times Record, in following the debate this year. As I wrote the other day, the campaign of Michael Heath and his minions was based on desperate non-truths, and Mainers were savvy enough to see through them. For that, I am proud of my neighbors.

And, in another resounding "no" that caught my eye, voters in Dover, PA ousted an entire school board. Enraged by the board's plans to teach "Intelligent Design" (a religious construct appropriate for Sunday School, not Public School), several residents ran a concerted campaign to take control of the board and reverse this decision. They were hoping for a simple majority but came out with 8 of the 9 seats. Score some big points for freedom of thought in this country!

Vote No on 1

Tuesday, Mainers will have the opportunity to reject hatred and uphold the law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law states that no Mainer can be denied employment, housing or public accomodation based upon their sexual orientation. While proponents of the "people's veto" play on fear, ignorance and hatred, reasonable Mainers will see that homosexuals do face oppression in this state and vote to do the right thing. Please Vote No on question 1.

The vote will likely be very close, so I encourage all Mainers to head to the polls on Tuesday and reject hatred. Most of the arguments by Christian Civic League and others supporting the referendum fall short on fact, leaving bigotry as the only rational motivation for their actions.

"Preserve Marriage": This is the biggy. For some reason, Christians are real threatened by the thought of gays getting married. I don't understand why "the sanctity of marriage" is damaged by homosexuals getting married, but many people believe it so. I even read a letter to the editor that suggested that the "next step" will be "three people getting married". This incredible leap of logic is symbolic of the fear-mongering preferred by the "Yes on 1" camp. No matter, however, as the law on the books specifically states that it is not to be interpreted as to permit gay marriage.

"Protect Maine": This is the other part of the slogan on the signs. I have no idea how Maine is threatened by gays. I did read an ad in the paper that said that, if allowed to stand, this law (which is supported by the Maine Education Association) will lead to gay-friendly curriculums and the celebration of gay pride week. I thought that the curriculum was set by the school boards and administration. Another leap of logic, I guess.

"Mainers have already rejected protection of gays twice before." So what? Mainers are wrong to promote hatred, and it is an embarrassment to the state that we have done so. I believe that there is greater understanding of the hardships that gays face in their daily lives, and that it is more and more apparent that protection is needed. And if the law is rejected a third time, I hope that the legislature brings it back a fourth time, simply because it's the right thing to do.

"Why protect a choice?" While I know a lot of gay people and have no doubt that homosexuality is not a choice, this line of argument also holds no water. Is religion not a choice? Is it illegal to discriminate based on religious affiliation? Why not take religious protection off the books, just to be equitable.

(Actually, scratch that. Too many Christians in this country would likely take advantage of the ability to discriminate against people of other faiths.)

"Isn't discrimination illegal anyway? Why do we need another law?" That's right, folks. Freedom from discrimination is protected in the constitution. So, in addition to religion, let's drop protection based on gender, race and nationality off the books, too.

No, we won't do that, because we know that, despite the redundancy, these laws provide an avenue to prosecute those who would discriminate agains their fellow people. As does the new law in Maine protecting those of all sexual orientations (please note that heterosexuals are also protected under this law).

If you believe that it's wrong to discriminate against other humans, you should not vote to approve this referundum. If you don't think that it's OK to discriminate, but you oppose the law presently on the books, then it's obvious that you have a problem with homosexuality and don't want to treat gays as equal human beings. Everybody is entitled to their feelings on the issue.

Just don't pretend that a Yes vote is based on anything other than hatred.